Extra Points

The NFL announced the full 2013 schedule tonight. Here's a link and a thread for you to discuss which teams have particularly easy or hard stretches. I'm very happy that, at least at first glance, it doesn't look like the league did that crazy thing it did in 2012 where numerous division rivalries had both games scheduled within three or four weeks of each other.

P.S. I'm wrong. Oh, for crying out loud. Saints and Panthers play twice in three weeks. So do Giants and Eagles, and Colts and Titans. It's so damn stupid.

Most of my analysis of the niners schedule is centered around how often they'll play in non-SF market areas (without the insanely expensive Sunday Ticket). This year looks pretty good. Then again, it's looked good since the advent of Harbaugh.

The sample sizes are inevitably small and it could be a chicken and egg situation where they seem weak because they suffer playing 10 am games on the road. The weakness of the Rams muddies the waters because they represent a significant portion of the 10 am games.

Even with that it has been shown that the west coast teams performances are weaker in the early starts.

There's no reason at this point to think that its anything other than West Coast teams simply not preparing properly for these games. Maybe they should go to bed earlier the night before, or fly out a day early.

Also, comparing 1pm games to 4pm games without controlling for quality of opponent is kind of strange. Typically the quality of opponent goes up when you go from 1pm->4pm->Monday night->8PM.

I don't think the problems with early games result from a lack of trying. Every west coast team has this problem, and none of them have figured out ways to fix it. I think it is the 49ers who fly out either a day earlier or more. I think the problem is, if you leave earlier, you have less time at your state-of-the-art practice facilities.

I do think it would be interesting if this was looked at in terms of expected DVOA vs. actual DVOA for all west coast teams to see exactly how large the difference is.

Totally agree. People can pooh pooh this all they want, but it's real and it's an unfair advantage to east coast teams. Even Vegas takes it into account in their betting lines so you know that says something right there.

Seahawks fans should take it easy. The early starts don't help, but they aren't that more debilitating than any other home game. Last year, the Miami and Carolina games were clearly winnable, but the Hawks couldn't punch out a victory. Remember, that was the early part of the year that had Wilson's playbook reduced and the team was not in peak form. This year is different. Wilson has this team eating out of his hand and he isn't going to let them think about the early start disadvantage. He will have them focus on execution, not the start time.

Last year, I thought the MNF sked looked really good heading into the season, but this year, it seems to me unusually bad, or at least back to the pre-2012 level (before the NFL could stash bad primetime games on TNF).

There are some nice matchups (CHI @ GB, PIT @ CIN, ATL @ SF, NO @ SEA), but a lot of random ones that have the potential to be really bad, like NYJ @ ATL or MIN @ NYG.

I don't know, but I still don't think ESPN is getting close to it's moneys worth with their slate, even though their package is the most expensive, and they promote the NFL far more than the other networks (other than NFLNetwork, obviously).

Also think it's only a matter of time before the TNF slate gets sold to Turner or some other network.

I don't understand this at all. ESPN is paying twice what NBC is, and gets a bunch of mostly second-rate matchups as a result. Plus, MNF is looking more and more like a low-budget production, and not something that's the network is spending $2B/year on.

Of course, ESPN can pass on their costs directly to cable subscribers. But why they would spend so much money for a bunch of second-level games really seems odd.

(And the NFL Network Thursday games will only be sold if the price is right. NFLN currently exists a subtle threat -- either pay us or we'll take it all in-house.)

Getting the NFL "legitimized" ESPN. It was their way of showing they were a first-rate network who could demand large fees from cable companies. And now, with several broadcasters getting into and/or beefing up cable sports channels, keeping the NFL is important to ESPN, even if the matchups they get aren't as good as what ABC used to get on Monday nights. (The NFL Network doesn't yet come across as any kind of serious competition.) At the moment, ESPN needs the NFL more than the NFL needs ESPN, and the league isn't shy about charging for that.

Well, remember when Roethlisberger went down just in time for the three-week stretch including two games against the Ravens? The Steelers managed to win the second of the games, but really, is this what we want?

I'm with ya Theo...to me there is more appeal in teams playing each other in fairly quick succession as the last game between the two is more recent, therefore more relevant, and therefore building up that rivalry.

On top of this, many other team sports manage to have rematches in quick succession without the earth exploding. NBA, MLB, NHL playoffs for example, soccer's home and away legs in World Cup qualifiers or European leagues, up to 5 back-to-back Test matches in a cricket series, rugby competitions like the Bledisloe Cup between Australia and NZ play 3 matches between each other in a month.

So the Packers have a unique away/home alternation for the first 9 weeks. Week 9/10 they have back to back home games but it's alternating the rest of the way, no back to back road games. First time they have never had back to back road games. I'm curious how often that may have happened for any team. Additionally, has a team ever had a full season of alternation with no back to back home or back to back away games?

Scott Kacsmar (aka Captain Comeback) just did one, but it's simpler than the work you desire.

He just looked at the predicted SoS based on the previous years results and the actual SoS based on what actually happened for every year from 2008-2012. He only used W/L, so DVOA isn't involved, but it is interesting how much things change from how we view a team coming into the season to what happens.

It's somewhat annoying that the article you reference makes note of the problem that strong teams create "weak" schedules by winning, and then fails to do the simple correction to remove the problem when reporting the "actual" SoS.

Just subtract away a team's record from its SoS to get how their opponents did against the rest of the league. It's best to think of last year's Broncos playing against a 114-126 SoS, and going 13-3. Still a weak schedule, but not as weak as the original number suggests. The Patriots opponents were above average at 122-116-2, a solid but not unusual result.

Without the correction, you get the impression of a league conspiracy to screw over weak teams by giving them tough schedules. Which just ain't so.

I think the point being aimed at is that playing the NFC West was supposed to be a cake walk for the Pats, based on their collective mediocrity over recent seasons. But the division was much stronger last season and the Pats only managed to go 1-3 against them.

The weakness of the AFC East was known at the beginning of the year. No one had Seattle that good at the time. The Colts had a much better record than expected - people were talking about a three win season. The Broncos, at 13-3, performed better than many were willing to predict. Tannehill was better than expected in his first year, and the 49ers went to the Super Bowl.

Or, they go 11-1 and then Victor Cruz shoots himself in the leg, and they lose their home game after the bye to the #6 seed Chicago Bears and Jay Cutler (playing the role of late-career Donovan McNabb).

They don't always go on miracle runs. They sometimes are really, really good and have done to them what they do unto others.

I grew up in Boston but now that I live in CA it's more difficult to watch my favorite sport teams. Obviously MLB.TV allows me to watch all Red Sox games and all baseball games for that matter and across as many devices at the sametime as I want.

Where the heck is NFL.TV? I know they have DirectTV NFL Sunday Ticket but I do not want cable or satellite. I only watch whatever channels my attenae brings in & I have apple tv for hulu, netflix, itunes, etc. SO NFL.TV WHERE YOU AT? I hate watching my Patriots in low quality on crappy streaming websites.

I think they do in Europe. I remember when I was in London a couple of years ago my uncle was using something like that. But other than Game Rewind, which is only after the fact, I don't think any similar service exists here.

It decidedly and intentionally does not. I'm in the same boat (hardcore Pats fan living in CA). DirecTV paid a LOT of money to the NFL for the exclusive license for Sunday Ticket, and recognizes that it's the only reason why a lot of DirecTV subscribers stick with them in these days of Hulu and streaming Netflix, not to mention traditional competition from DISH and cable (plus the free, local airwave broadcast, which you can get in some areas in HD). As a result, the NFL intentionally does not allow any other form of "watch a game out of market" mode in the US, and relentlessly prosecutes any attempt to circumvent the system.

I even looked into whether it's possible for a cable or satellite provided to, for a fee or not, provide me with their Boston feed rather than their California feed (which they certainly have the ability to do!) since I'd actually rather watch local Boston news and sports than Bay Area ones anyway. But the answer there is no, due this time to FCC regulations rather than the reluctance of the media provider (who actually has an interest in other profit opportunities). These FCC regulations exist, as far as I can tell, in response to powerful lobbying efforts by TV advertisers rather than out of any conceivable argument for the good of the public or the consumer.

I personally think the DirecTV exclusive license to Sunday Ticket should jeapordize the NFL's antitrust exemption far more than any other argument that people put forward, but frankly, antitrust laws have zero teeth anymore for any industry in the US (a root of many of our nation's problems, but I'll stop there to avoid getting into politics).

So I'm afraid your only options are Rewind after the fact, DirecTV with Sunday Ticket, a sports bar, or becoming a Niners (or Chargers, depending on where you are) fan, unless you feel like skirting the law and have tech savvy friends back east to help.

You can get NFL Sunday Ticket with Playstation 3, rather than having to have DirectTV satellite.

As a Charger fan in the Bay Area, a time slot when the Chargers are on instead of an Oakland blackout or Niners game is rare. I can't get DirectTV, so my outs are either go to sports bars or pay for Sunday Ticket on PS3.

Most Recent FO Features

This week: a bad coach gets paid, then insulted; a bad quarterback gets optimistic; another bad quarterbcak gets a cunning plan; a bad play gets Matt Ryan irked; a bad play gets burned; and Jets and Raiders fans get drunk.